Identifying false religions.

Jar has already admitted that his/her beliefs about "GOD" are irrational, illogical, unreasonable, contrary to his/her will, and apparently *secret* both in formulation and content. Furthermore, he/she sees no potential problems with such beliefs.I have therefore concluded that Jar is intentionally lying to salvage an untenable faith position, seriously mentally ill, or some combination of the two. I suggest you consider this in any further debate you might engage in with Jar, as I don't see any possibility of beneficial communication.

Actually I believe you are wrong RAZD. Is not it more rational to acknowledge that the burden of proof is required for the one who is proposing the evidence that something/someone exists than the other way around? Do we really have to prove the existance of everything that is proposed to exist in order to be considered 'rational'? Is it as rational to believe in the unsubstantiated existance of dragons, faries, teapots orbiting Uranus or any other flight of fancy that our human minds can conjure up as not believing in these things until emperical evidence can be provided?Really is that your position?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I'm sorry but parts of that statement are false. When you say "apparently *secret* both in formulation and content." you are of course wrong and you have been told that you are wrong.Over the years here at EvC I doubt that anyone's beliefs have been discussed more than mine. I suggested that you start in Columnists Corner where I have several threads that were open discussions of my beliefs.Maybe you need more help finding them so here are some links. Belief Statement - jar
On Christianity
Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula
Who can be saved. A Christian perspectiveThose will do for a start. Each thread is between 140 and 300+ messages long so they may take a while for you to read through. Once you finish going through them let me know since there are quite a few more I can suggest. You are, of course, free to conclude most anything, however foolish it makes you look.Edited by jar, : edit sub-title

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So it seems that you only are willing to say what you believe, not discuss the reasoning (if there is any) behind it at all.Can you distinguish your participation within this forum as anything other than 1-way communication, with a focus on proselytizing? Are you familiar with a guy named "Gish"?

Do you know the meaning of proselytizing?Do I ever ask anyone to believe as I do?Did you read the threads I linked you to? Do they discuss my reasoning? Of course. However the threads I linked you to are directly related to what I believe and how I arrived at those beliefs. How is that related to a Gish Gallop?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, I didn't read them all. Please read the Library of Congress and reply to my post with that in mind.As for if they discuss your reasoning, it doesn't appear that they do. Your unwillingness to discuss your reasoning here backs that up. It appears that you are simply interested in stating what you believe, not explaining why except in an extremely general and yawn-inspiring sense. "Once upon a time I was but a young boy..."Part of the participation in a discussion forum is to discuss things, which often relies upon explaining not only your position but how you got there. Most of the time it isn't simply to get to know more about the particular individual posting. The similarity lies in the deliberate presentation of far too much material to actually formulate a decent reply. The thread is about Identifying False Religions, and you are unwilling to discuss how exactly you came to decide your religious beliefs are correct or how other religious beliefs are false. Your willingness to link to novel-length compendiums of tangentially related ramblings does not really address the topic at all.Unless you are actually willing to discuss your reasoning behind your beliefs, I suggest you simply introduce yourself (as you have already done in other threads) and quit posting. We are not here simply to find out *what* you believe.

If you did not read them how do you know that they do not explain my reasoning?How I got to my present beliefs took me something over 20,000 hours of experience. I cannot explain that in one post. I never claimed or claim that my beliefs are correct, only that they are what I believe.I believe (but again may be wrong) that I have said that once or thrice in this very thread and know for a fact that I mention that in the threads I linked you too. I intentionally gave you a very limited number of the threads and discussion here at EvC dealing with my beliefs since you were specifically asking about my beliefs.However, if you now wish to return to the topic of this thread (thank God) I will gladly give you some of the ways I identify False Religions.First, as I have said many times at EvC, all religions are at least partly false in my opinion. My reasoning on this is that a GOD that could create all that is, seen and unseen, is something beyond what any human could understand and that we would have as much chance of having a true relationship with such a being as pond scum having a true relationship with a human.All religions are but maps, they are not the territory. They are caricatures, efforts by humans to imagine and describe what is unimaginable.Next, a belief when there is overwhelming evidence that it is factually wrong is a false religion. Examples would be a belief that there actually was a Noahic Flood, an Exodus as described in the Bible, a Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah, or a literal talking snake is a False Religion.Do those help you? Again, too funny.The threads I linked you to are SOME, just a few, of the threads where I have discussed my beliefs. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So you clearly state your position and congratulate yourself on your consistency as you do so.But when you are asked about the improbability of un-evidenced entities which hold some personal appeal to you suddenly you throw a hissy fit about personal belief, proclaim yourself to be inconsistent and declare that whatever you believe to be rational is rational because you believe it to be so. And now you want to patronise me by making out that this was all some sort of masterplan on your part to reveal the true nature of discovery to those of us unblessed with your insight?Wow!

Again, that summary of yours is not quite what I have said.What I have said is that the reasoning for SOME of my beliefs is none of your business and since it is only relevant to my personal beliefs, pretty much irrelevant anyway. Second, I have said repeatedly that many of my beliefs are irrational not rational. I never made a claim that there was any masterplan on my part but I do think it is nice to acknowledge progress when observed.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I really have little interest in your self confessed irrational personal beliefs. Please stop assuming that I am seeking to challenge your right to irrationally believe whatever you irrationally want.What I do dispute is your right to declare some un-evidenced beliefs as rational simply because you reserve the right believe them to be so. On what basis? Irrational personal belief? Or that which contradicts your previous statements regarding improbability (which were made as you basked in the glow of your own self-congratulatory consistency) I too am delighted to see that you are taking the first tentative steps on this road to enlightenment that we are embarking on together.

Once again, you misrepresent my position. The beliefs I consider rational are evidenced and as I said, the evidence is the stories written about them. I imagine the communication problem is that you do not consider what I consider to be evidence as evidence.Let's look at the Deist God. I examine the writings about a Deist God and I find the arguments personally compelling, so I say that a Deist God is more likely than some other Gods. Another example are the two gods presented in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3. I find the god in Genesis 1 more probable than the god presented in Genesis 2&3.As I have pointed out in this thread (I believe), one of the differences is in the detail and the amount of detail available in the stories. There is far more detail (evidence) in the story about the god found in Genesis 2&3 that I can use to make the rational decision that that god is less likely than the god found in Genesis 1 or in the Deist descriptions.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you consider "GOD" to be unimaginable and incomprehensible by humans, then I assume that you cannot fully imagine or comprehend "GOD". What is it then, about your state of non-understanding of "GOD" that leads you to conclude those who claim a more complete understanding are wrong?It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for one who does not know something to claim that it *cannot* be known. Your position, so far as I can understand, is that "GOD" cannot be fully understood and so all religions are to some extent false. However that claim is made with the admission that you don't really understand "GOD" at all... so how would you really know?Your criteria for distinguishing false religions seems to be based on extending your inability to understand "GOD" to everyone else, and that is simply poor reasoning.

HUH? HUH? Well, there I may be able to show you some reasoned position. Any critter that is able to create all that is, seen and unseen, is a being far beyond my meager capabilities. I often have trouble understanding or knowing just plain old humans; many folk like cavediver and Silas and many more I have encountered here are far beyond my capability to truly 'know'. If I find it hard to really know other humans, what chance would I have to really know, to have a relationship with, the being that simply by an act of will created all that is, seen or unseen?It may well be that you are smarter than I and so can imagine or know such a critter. HUH?My criteria for identifying false religions has nothing to do with GOD, rather it concerns God(s) and god(s).When something is presented describing a God or god, for example the description found in different religious stories, the Vedas, the books of the various Bibles, the Norse or Greek or Roman mythology, the Qur'an, the Egyptian pantheon, American India religious stories, then I have something where I can make reasoned, rational decisions.BUT when it comes to GOD about all that I can say is that I believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen or unseen. There I simply do not have sufficient data to make a reasoned, rational decision. My belief that such a being does exist is not reasonable or rational, it is unreasonable and irrational, yet I believe it.Would I prefer that I had evidence other than my personal belief, evidence that I could present for review and criticisms? Yup. But I don't.Is it possible that my belief might be wrong? Certainly.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Exactly, beyond *your* capabilities. Now how exactly do you get from there to it being beyond the capabilities of anyone else, including those who claim to have been personally visited, entered, and altered by that being?Your inability to understand "GOD" is only indicative of your shortcomings, not of "GOD" being universally incomprehensible. Ok, so taking that into account how can you conclude that all religions are to some extent false? Perhaps then you could modify the statement of your reasoning so that it does not include the term "GOD", which you say it has nothing to do with.

LOLWhatever. I thought you were asking me about my beliefs. If and when someone can convince me that they can really know and understand GOD then I will change my belief. HUH?In my belief religions do not deal with GOD, but rather God(s) or god(s). I can make reasoned and rational decisions about my belief or non-belief, about whether or not a religion is false based not on GOD but rather God(s) or god(s). Because how smart you are is unrelated to my conclusions about religions. Those conclusions are based on the evidence I find in what has been written about those religions.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!